Saturday 27 February 2010 19.07 EST
First published on Saturday 27 February 2010 19.07 EST

God is everywhere, at least according to those who believe in Him. So is the internet: it's global, ubiquitous and has – according to its evangelists – slipped the surly bonds of nation states. The trouble is that those who use it have to reside within legal jurisdictions.

And therein lies a big problem, one aspect of which surfaced last week, in Italy, where a judge handed out prison sentences to three senior US-based Google executives for "violating privacy" by allowing a video showing a handicapped Italian schoolboy being physically and verbally abused to be posted online.

This judgment provoked astonished indignation on the net, especially among American commentators. "Why," fumed Mike Butcher on TechCrunch, an influential technology blog, "did someone not explain to this idiot judge that the video was NOT uploaded by these Google executives?"

And, he went on: "Italy needs to get its act together and fast. I'm calling on Italian entrepreneurs, many of whom I know and respect, to get involved in this issue. At a time when European countries are weighed down by regulation and stupid rulings like this one, especially during a period of huge economic upheaval, it is not enough to stand by and watch travesties like this go by. Do the young people of Italy and the rest of Europe, so many of whom are huge enthusiasts of the web and the power it gives them to drag themselves up by their bootstraps without the need for state help, deserve to have decrepit judges decide their economic future?"

One can see why Butcher is annoyed. The video in question was made in May 2006 and posted on 8 September to Google Video – the hosting service that Google closed after it bought YouTube. It reportedly showed a boy with Down's syndrome being beaten and insulted by bullies at a Turin school. On 7 November Google took it down "within hours" of being contacted by Italian police. But it had left it up for two whole months despite comments from viewers allegedly protesting about it.

Google points out that "none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video. They did not appear in it, film it, upload it or review it. None of them know the people involved or were even aware of the video's existence until after it was removed". All of which is true, but doesn't quite get around the fact that, as senior executives, they are also responsible for what their company does, and are remunerated from the profits that it makes. YouTube may not yet be a big money-spinner for Google; but it isn't a non-for-profit venture either. And then there's that awkward matter of the two months it took to take down the video.

The company intends to appeal against the convictions, which makes sense on due-process grounds and also because the costs of doing what the judgment implies is necessary – ie previewing every uploaded track before making it public — would be huge. The Guardian's Charles Arthur has calculated that to review the 20 hours of video footage uploaded to YouTube every minute would require 3,600 people working eight-hour shifts, 365 days a year. That would blow a neat hole in even Google's astronomical profits.

Whatever the outcome, though, the legal spat is just the latest symptom of an underlying structural problem, namely the mismatch between the internet's global reach and the fact that we live in a world of sovereign states. Everywhere one looks one finds evidence of the tensions between the two systems: French judges forbidding Yahoo selling Nazi memorabilia on its auction site; German judges objecting to neo-Nazi discussions groups hosted in the US, where they are protected by the First Amendment; the Chinese government objecting to any mention of Falun Gong; British laws outlawing child porn sites; or the Iranian regime objecting to just about everything. Like climate change, the gap between what the internet can do and what local authorities will allow is a global problem requiring a global solution, which is why we're unlikely ever to solve it.

In the case of the Google Three, however, it's likely that they will be vindicated because even if the Italian appeal fails, there is always the possibility of recourse to the European Court in Strasbourg, which will take the view that European Union law, as currently drafted, appears to give hosting providers a safe harbour from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. The downside of this, of course, is that Google will have to be much more responsive to complaints, which will make it much easier to have videos taken down because the prudent course will always be to "take down first and ask questions later".

The glory days of YouTube may be coming to an end. And Silvio Berlusconi remains at large.